Do you have any idea who Ben Emmerson of Great Britain, and Christof Heyns of South Africa happen to be and what they have to do with President Obama, the United States Military, American foreign policies, and forcing the termination of one more tactic used in the “War on Terror”? You will. Ben Emmerson is the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights and Christof Heyns is the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Together, these two will head an investigation under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council into the use by the United States of drones against targets of particular interest as determined by the powers that be in the White House and President Obama’s Administration and the admissibility of the civilian deaths caused by such attacks. What makes this even more troubling is that the White House has instructed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to announce that the White House has not ruled out cooperating with this investigation. Ambassador Rice was quoted saying, “Well, we have questions about the appropriateness of that approach but we will look at it on its merits, and as we do with all the work of the rapporteurs, we’ll judge their work on the substance of their products.” My bet is that this will be a crushing disappointment for President Obama when the United Nations criticizes his actions and demands that he cease using drones to target anyone, even terrorists, because there is the chance and have been in the past deaths of innocent people. We all know from past decisions made by the United Nations Human Rights Council and General Assembly against Israel that terrorists and those who hide them as well as those among whom they live are protected by the many agencies and bodies of the United Nations while the citizens of the nations who are targeted and the people murdered by these same terrorists are legitimate targets not due any protections by the United Nations and its many agencies.
The big question that this situation raises is what is wrong with President Obama that he is willingly placing the United States and the use of military assets to protect innocent people from terrorist attacks through the elimination of their leaders and those who make up the ranks of the known terrorist groups? Is President Obama that ignorant of the ways of the United Nations that he actually expects that they will find his actions of using militarized drones as acceptable? It is highly doubtful that President Obama or any of his advisors have any misgivings about the determination that this special report on civilian deaths caused by the drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries. They are fully aware that the findings will demand that the United States refrain from any further use of drones to assassinate or target terrorists or terror infrastructures if there is any possibility of innocent civilian casualties. Since they have to know the result even well before the investigation has initiated and therefore there must be some ulterior motive for allowing this ruse to go ahead. We all know that the report could be written and turned in by week’s end without even leaving New York and thus save everybody a lot of money, unless the report has already been written and the investigation is simply a Club United Nations trip around the Middle East and North Africa paid in full by, you guessed it, the United States, or at least half of the bill paid by the United States. So, what is their ulterior motive?
I am almost embarrassed to have to pretend that anybody needs to be told what President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, James R. Clapper Jr., General Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and the rest of the usual suspects are hoping to gain from this United Nations fiasco. They are fully expecting to be condemned for their use of drones to kill terrorists and have the United Nations demand that we cease and desist from implementing the tactic of using drones to target terrorists or any other form of strike which holds even the most remote possibility of causing collateral deaths or severe damage. The United States will be accused and found guilty of having a cavalier attitude and lack of concern for innocent citizens and will possibly advise that the United States be ordered to pay compensations to those who have suffered losses due to our illegal use of remote control drones in a careless manner lacking in concern for innocents. In the end, President Obama will be able to make a speech and apologize to all the countries and their citizens who have suffered at the hands of the brutal use of drones by the United States. The decision will further allow President Obama to give millions, or billions, or trillions of dollars to Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and who knows who else as compensation for our arbitrary killing of their innocent citizens. The final thing is that President Obama will also be able to rule out any further use of drones and possibly make the ROE (rules of Engagement) for our military which will place their lives in greater danger and make protecting themselves and those around them even more difficult. President Obama does not need to utilize drone strikes any longer as he has been reelected and will no longer have to face the voters. This too is an area where he has more leeway.
Beyond the Cusp
Beyond the Cusp 